Are the media biased

[ramAnag]

Never heard of Anne Marie Waters? That proves my point. You'll never hear of her on the BBC.

Delve deeper into AMW and For Britain. You'll see she is sensible and well-balanced individual.

If Tommy Robinson is just a thug then why shut him up in Belmarsh Prison? Perhaps it would be better to shoot him but instead of celebrating, read what he has to say about Islamic scripture.

How do the BBC treat Trump unfairly? lol Here's a challenge for you. Read BBC online and show me a single fair and objective article on the President, one that doesn't 'crucify' him. It should be easy enough. There's at least one story about him every single day without exception.

Daft response Guntery.

There are doubtless lots of people I haven’t heard of. The fact that Anne Marie Waters is one of them proves absolutely nothing. No ‘sensible and well balanced individual’ could make the claim I mentioned.

Tommy Robinson has been convicted of having a false passport, attempting to enter the US illegally, has at least four ‘identities’ that even I know of, has had to answer three counts of conspiring to commit fraud and was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour as part of a group of Luton Town hooligans.
Maybe one of the above is why he went to Belmarsh, I wouldn’t know, but I’m not going to waste my time on a right wing extremist with that sort of record.
Why would you want to give someone like that the ‘platform’ provided by the BBC?

I’ve listed some of Trump’s statements elsewhere...I’ve never seen him ‘crucified’ by the BBC, but whenever they quote him he invariably ends up looking ridiculous. Who’s fault is that?

By the way, I am biased...I loath bullies, bigots and those who seek to be promoted beyond their capability. Trump ticks each of those boxes.

[mistaram]

By the way, you might find Anne Marie Waters described as a far right activist. I haven't a clue what far right means but I suspect in the case of AMW, it implies that she is one of the few people who have actually read the Quran and dares to talk of the horrors it contains.

Can't believe you trying to justify an out and out Islamaphobe She joined with Robinson to form Pegida UK who sole aim is to prevent Islam being taught here . Saying you don't know what far right you seem to have a great affinity with people who are of that persuasion
At the end of the day she's just a loser She was desperate to become an MP but was rejected by the Labour party three times So in desparation she formed yet another party "For Britain" stood in the election said quite well 266 votes 1.2% of the votes . Not heard anything from her for a long time probably waiting for that other loser Robinson to come out .

[Geoff Parkstone]

As a point of interest, and I am not taking any sides in the above debate, why would you not want to give him a platform on what should be a neutral state funded media platform.

RA, you might not want to because you don't agree with what he says, but there are those that do... as evidenced above.

So surely in the spirit of democracy you must agree he should have a platform - if you're confident in your own argument you have nothing to lose.

Was it Churchill that said something like "I may not agree with your opinion but I will defend your right to express it to the seat"?

[Trickytreesreds]

No because you know my feelings about alcohol

To be fair, I forgot. I actually apologise for that. You and I can agree on that with the devil juice.

[mistaram]

Daft response Guntery.

There are doubtless lots of people I haven’t heard of. The fact that Anne Marie Waters is one of them proves absolutely nothing. No ‘sensible and well balanced individual’ could make the claim I mentioned.

Tommy Robinson has been convicted of having a false passport, attempting to enter the US illegally, has at least four ‘identities’ that even I know of, has had to answer three counts of conspiring to commit fraud and was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour as part of a group of Luton Town hooligans.
Maybe one of the above is why he went to Belmarsh, I wouldn’t know, but I’m not going to waste my time on a right wing extremist with that sort of record.
Why would you want to give someone like that the ‘platform’ provided by the BBC?

I’ve listed some of Trump’s statements elsewhere...I’ve never seen him ‘crucified’ by the BBC, but whenever they quote him he invariably ends up looking ridiculous. Who’s fault is that?

By the way, I am biased...I loath bullies, bigots and those who seek to be promoted beyond their capability. Trump ticks each of those boxes.

RA don't call him a right wing extremist Guntery doesn't know what far right is

[Geoff Parkstone]

Der, "death" bloody spell checker

[Ram59]

[QUOTE=ramAnag;39570283]Ram, firstly...it’s good to be able to discuss things from such a different perspective without recourse to abuse or inanity...but beyond that we’ll have to continue to disagree.

It's great that we can agree on something, even if it is agreeing to disagree.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to be over critical of someone's actions that were neither illegal nor immoral at the time they committed them. Who knows what current great people's actions will be condemned far into the future.

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=Ram59;39570496]

Ram, firstly...it’s good to be able to discuss things from such a different perspective without recourse to abuse or inanity...but beyond that we’ll have to continue to disagree.

It's great that we can agree on something, even if it is agreeing to disagree.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to be over critical of someone's actions that were neither illegal nor immoral at the time they committed them. Who knows what current great people's actions will be condemned far into the future.

I fully accept that legality may be determined by time, Ram.
Do you honestly think morality is?

Look at the conditions the slaves had to cope with. Can you honestly say that wasn’t immoral, that no one recognised it was wrong?
Jump forward hundreds of years...the actions of the Nazis towards the Jews were legal because of the law maker...but regardless of legality no one can surely argue that they weren’t morally unacceptable.

[ramAnag]

As a point of interest, and I am not taking any sides in the above debate, why would you not want to give him a platform on what should be a neutral state funded media platform.

RA, you might not want to because you don't agree with what he says, but there are those that do... as evidenced above.

So surely in the spirit of democracy you must agree he should have a platform - if you're confident in your own argument you have nothing to lose.

Was it Churchill that said something like "I may not agree with your opinion but I will defend your right to express it to the seat"?

I don’t recall saying I wouldn’t give him a platform, GP. Indeed I have, unfortunately, seen him on the BBC news.
I asked Gunteryy...1) why anyone would give such a person respect...and 2) why HE would want Robinson - or whatever he wants to be called this week - a platform on the BBC.
Personally I think he’s a divisive, attention seeking, scumbag and, personally, I don’t wish to see such people given airtime.
On the evidence of your comment last night you probably don’t care because you don’t know any of the people he’s made life difficult for and he us unlikely to have an impact on your life.

[Trickytreesreds]

So where does morality and legality end?

The pyramids/ Rome etc were all built legally by slaves. Morality wasn't considered then and isn't now with its relics.
You can't change the past, but you can acknowledge it and learn from it. Change things for the future. Outrage and re writing it solves nothing.

But if slavery is so abhorrant, why does the teachings of Islam neither ignore or condemn it. It is still apart of Sharia teachings.

Slavery has occured and still occurs in every corner of the world. But there is a definite culture of selective slavery condemnation from one part of the world. As well as targetting one ethnic culture for its participation, whilst ignoring all others. WHY?